Semantics and Fear, Fantasies and Soul Mates: Part I
By Veronica Smith
Subscribers can read Part II
I enjoyed hearing from folks who liked my last article comparing
Southern Comfort to a pilgrimage. I personally had a great time
there, but I've enjoyed reading other perspectives as well. I
especially liked George Wilkerson's Me and Bobbi, Southern
Discomfort: Part 1 and Part 2. I particularly sympathized with
George's unease at the semantic abuses of which we transgendered folk
are guilty. While scanning all the newsletters that come to our club,
I come across many pronoun peculiarities particular to our
persuasion. One common source of semantic sins, I've observed, comes
from the fear many TGs have about being considered gay.
For example, I just finished reading an article in which a person
relates how she is feminizing herself: electrolysis, facial surgery,
hormones, etc. For the most part I really liked the candid, personal
narrative of self-discovery. Only I got confused when she said that
her sexual identity was bisexual but that her sexual
orientation was heterosexual. I understood that while her
psyche was a mixture of both masculine and feminine, she was only
sexually attracted to females. But I could not see how that made her
heterosexual, since being heterosexual means being sexually attracted
to the opposite sex. This person, I suppose, firmly believes that
gender is in the soul and sex is in the genitals. But it seems
somewhat grammatically convoluted to write she is a
heterosexual who is only attracted to women. So why not
pleasantly think of her femme self as lesbian? Or is being considered
heterosexual so important to her that if she were to continue her
feminization to completion, she would then no longer be attracted to
women and become attracted to men?
As unlikely as that sounds, I have another example of how
homophobia colors transgenderistic writing. An intelligent and
sensitive person (whom I admire and personally like) once wrote that
becoming attracted to men after her sexual reassignment surgery was
natural. Natural seems like such an innocent word, but
it is actually loaded with meaning. Its use reveals what the writer
sees as inherently right and wrong, and displays personal beliefs and
prejudices. To state that it is natural to desire a man after
becoming a woman implies that it is unnatural for a woman to
desire another woman. In other words, this person believes that for a
man to take massive doses of hormones, have various invasive
surgeries, restructure the face and body and only then have
sex with a man is natural, but for a guy just to have sex with
another guy is not natural.
For the two above-referenced individuals, it
is paramount to be considered straight at all times. They
would only have sex with women when they had male genitalia and they
will only have sex with men when they have female genitalia. Less
than 10% of their body determines who they can be attracted to
because they buy into their culture's homophobia. At various levels,
they've accepted that being gay is wrong; at some level they
supported Trent Lott when he was on the floor of the Senate quoting
Leviticus and shouting something to the effect of "The Lord sayeth
only innies can do it with outies!" They accept what certain
people have gleaned from the Bible. But the Bible is many things to
many people. You can use it to validate any of your prejudices. Slave
owners before the Civil War used the story of Noah's children to
validate slavery, and I personally remember hearing Bob Jones Jr.
validate segregation with the story of the Tower of Babel. (I'm sure
there are nuts out there who use the story of Lot to validate
incest.) The magnetic desire of possible societal acceptance for
their unusual state has them hopping, skipping and jumping around any
hint that they might be considered homosexual,which they have firmly
accepted as socially unacceptable. But are they being completely
honest with themselves? Am I the only one who finds it hard to
believe that an individual who takes years to achieve complete
feminization has never considered the possibility of sex with a man
until the day after his/her penis has been inverted?
What must be promoted at all times is that it
is just as okay to be gay as to be straight so that any conclusions
are not loaded with implicit judgment. Neither homosexual nor
heterosexual is more natural than the other, just as it is no more
natural for some people to want to wear clothes of the opposite
gender and some not; just as it is no more natural that some people
are born with the wrong genitalia and some not. Not fitting within
our culturally proscribed gender roles places homosexual and
transgendered folks in the same family. If we don't listen to our gay
brothers and sisters, our family discourse is missing essential
perspectives. Vanna, in November's issue of Ask Rachael, seems
to be missing just such an essential perspective. She wrote: "I
married because I thought it was the proper thing to do in society,
and so people wouldn't think I was gay... m I gay, because I've
married and dated women and only thought about going with a man?
Would I be normal if I dated men?" Vanna is now contemplating
surgery to get her body "in line" with her mind. Rachel rightly
promotes psychotherapy and suggests that Vanna may find that she is
not necessarily "TS, but TG or even TV and that is okay." But I'd
like to add that Vanna might very well be gay and that being gay is
as okay as being TS, TG or TV and that all of the above are as okay
as the other and she is welcomed, accepted and appreciated for who
she is.
On the old Hollywood Squares, Peter Marshall asked
Paul Lynde at what age do most American boys have their first sexual
experience, and Paul Lynde responded, "About nine or ten." And then
reacting to the stunned silence, Paul Lynde quickly added in his own
inimitable style, "Oh! You mean their first sexual experience with
another person! Oh well then, uh, twenty-one or twenty-two, I
guess." I have no way of knowing, but I suspect that the average
man's longest-term and most intimate sexual partner is himself.
Doesn't this make most men at least partly homosexual? Because, I
mean, you can't get much more same sex than that. But, of course,
most guys would respond that it's what's in the mind that determines
sexuality. But, whoa! Do we even want to go there? Because while a
man's body is otherwise engaged, nearly anything can float through
his head: from Sophia Loren's almond and overly made-up eyes
to Demi Moore's flaunting posture and moist lips to the shine
of a new ratchet set to Kathy Lee Gifford's plucky
wholesomeness to a rifle's stock smooth and freshly-oiled wood
to Arnold's grimace as he grips Conan's sword to
Phyllis Diller's crazy cackle to Ursula Andress coming out of
the sea holding a shell to the girl you remember in long, choir robes
to the first time you slowly draped a chamois across a car in
cherry condition to a matador as he twisted his body away from
the horns to winning the race to Delta Burke's matronly
and benedictional smile to Kate Moss' fragile and
accepting body to the space shuttle blasting off to
Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint appraising each other to the first
time feeling good on the dance floor to the happy sound of champagne
popping to the taste of a new lover's lips. A guy can
have anything float through his head; he doesn't really have much
control about that, and he can be humming The Green Berets at
the same time. But, while men are able to eroticize anything from
stiletto heels to teacups (the Victorians got worked up over piano
legs), men can physically have sex with any of a multitude of things,
including pillows, socks, washcloths, various fruits, even animals
Portnoy does it with the family meatloaf. So, this dread some
people have of even considering sex with another living human being
who just happens to be the same sex puzzles me.
Frankly, I think it's crude to have genitals determine attraction.
I tend to go along with writer and director David Cronenberg's ideas
on the subject. "We've long ago separated ourselves from whatever
biological imperative there was," he said while making M.
Butterfly. "Sexuality is an invention, it's a creative thing."
What's important, I think, is to rid ourselves of the stupid
prejudices and propaganda that we've all had drummed into our heads
and create a sexuality with someone we trust and love regardless of
gender.
Next month, I would like to describe how my wife and I approached
the idea of me taking hormones and feminizing.
|